A tag has been placed on Tomasz Borkowy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
Okay - why have you suddenly slammed a tag on my article- when I've literally just started writing it? It took you 8 minutes from the creation of the page. I've put an inuse banner on it to show that I'm currently wrting it - although your edit conflict didn't help when I tried to post a bit more of it. I've now had to leave the article, which I'm in the middle of researching to come and talk to you. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Well, it didn't really say anything other than "this guy appeared on Doctor Who" when I read it. It also lacked citations. You should have really stuck that UnderConstruction tag on it to begin with. Please tone it down, though. I am sorry if it caused inconvenience to you. ←Signed:→Mr. E. SánchezGet to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 11:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but you need to check the edit history before you go to measures like trying to get articles deleted. With one edit of just 8 minutes earlier - of course it had just been started. At least wait a few days before you consider that it's not worthy. I have put an inuse tag on it now, but let me pause for breath. Please try to be less trigger happy when people are trying to be creative. Thank you. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having now been disrupted, I've gone off on a tangent - looking into your edit history and I see you seem to be a new article patroller. Well, I would direct you to this: Wikipedia:New pages patrol and in particular; Patrolling new pages. Jumping on brand new articles which are not vandalism "only serves to annoy the editor". If you want to patrol new pages - go back to the start, having had a look - the New pages section goes back to 14 October - rather than attack articles which have been created in the last few minutes. I have now lost track of the article I was writing so I'm going to take a break. Please consider your actions more carefully. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Higher Than High - Brotherhood Of Man.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Higher Than High - Brotherhood Of Man.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for Image:From the Beggar's Mantle.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:From the Beggar's Mantle.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fastily (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grammar
Hi there. I just noticed that you changed the Roxy Music article from is to are. There seems to be a lot of debate about this lately, but I've always considered it are (as in Roxy Music are). The rule is 'he is' and 'they are' - and I consider a group to be more than one person. However, other people say a group is singular (a group is an it). With this in mind it seems understandable to say Roxy Music is - but I still prefer are! By this stage I'm completely confused - despite English being my best subject in school! Do you know which is correct (or can they both be used?) ? Thanks.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi:
The rules for collective nouns are different in the UK than in the US. British grammar dictates the use of a plural verb. Because Roxy Music are/were a British act, UK rules apply. Likewise, if one were to refer to an American band, the singular would apply, as in "R.E.M. is home now from the world tour".
Fair use rationale for Image:All for a Song - alt cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:All for a Song - alt cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fastily (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - December 2008
Note: from now on the Newsletter will be "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.
IMPORTANT: Please give your opinion here about the inclusion of selection processes in Country in the ESC Year pages.
The backlog of assessments in the project is still ongoing, with a large number of articles not being rated. If you see articles without the {{EurovisionNotice}} template on the article's talk page, please add it, or read Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment if you would like to help assess the articles as well.
Instructions for the use of all Eurovision templates and descriptions for the layouts of pages are still in the works.
Remember to source all information you add to pages or else it may be removed and always use an edit summary so other users know why you are adding or removing information.
Three more songs have qualified for the semi-final of Bulgaria's selection process. Three more heats and another quarter-final will be held during December.
Welcome to the fifth edition of the WikiProject Eurvision newsletter!
Just a couple of short months after starting the newsletter and reorganizing the Eurovision project, things are finally starting to look good and consistent for 2009!
As we move into December, and ever closer to the "heart" of the National Final/Selection season, I would like to remind members to take a look at the project description/guideline on the project page and try to follow it the best way possible as the season progresses. Our main goal here is to have all of the articles consistent, while also being able to nominate them for GA status or above once the 2009 contest is over. The best and easiest way to achieve this is if we all work together and follow the guidelines. I would also like to remind users to source all information added into articles, preferably by reliable/established sources. Any questions regarding sources should be asked on the project talk page. Also, there is a large backlog of 1087 Unassessed Eurovision articles that need to be assessed. Any help with assessment will be appreciated and noted.
If we can manage to work together and follow the guidelines, as well as monitoring unregistered IP addresses, I think the 2009 season will go by much easier than past years! Sure we will still get into our little arguments here and there, and have different opinions about editing, but that's part of the whole editing experience. What fun would there be without the occasional drama? Just remember that at the end of the day, we are all working towards a common goal.
This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011 (talk). If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.
This article is still woefully short of references / citations, which are needed to deter potential vandals, fancruft freaks and deletionists etc. I know you have worked hard to get this article into shape, and I have not contributed at all in recent times - BUT - "must try harder" is your current school report. Very best wishes,
Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Eurovision 81.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Eurovision 81.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Thanks for visiting the B for Brotherhood page and rating it. I find it hard to believe you'd rate it stub however. I've checked a lot of start class articles and they seem much less than this one. Any thoughts?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ammendment. I will be adding to the article and will try to extend the opening. It's reallly hard to find references and info on these old pop albums. How much easier people have it for today's albums!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I saw this and thought you might be interested...)
Hello, Tuzapicabit/Archive 3! Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Greater Manchester-related articles. Given the interest we're assuming you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Greater Manchester? It's a user-group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Greater Manchester-related content. There is a discussion page for sharing ideas as well as developing and getting tips on improving articles. The project has in-house specialists to support and facilitate your ideas. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We hope to be working with you in the future!
Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Actually what had happened was that you had added a comment at exactly the same time so please do not try to manipulate what I was saying. How could I have changed it to look like you were agreeing with me when you were saying something different?
I was actually trying to reply to the comment directly above, hence why I put it there.
I deeply resent the fact that you are accusing me of trying to corrupt anything. Not only that but you seem to be asking for my article to be deleted to get back at me. You already knew that I was creating the article and for what purpose as I had discussed it with you beforehand and you seemed to think it was a good idea. Maybe I was wrong, but I never tried to change what you were saying or anyone else.
I also resent the fact that you say I will not listen to reason, I have my thoughts and opinions and I did try to talk to you before. Just because I have different opinions does not make me unreasonable. --Cexycy (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apology very gratefully accepted. Please look at the main parent article as I have merged the other article in and cleared it up a little. It should make perfect sense now and not mislead anyone. Not that I thought it did anyway but there you go. Let me know what you think. --Cexycy (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks good at the moment and I look forward to see what else you have to offer. For now, I'll answer your quesions:
Clint Eastwood reached a peak of #18 with the double-A side (as stated on the official charts), so clearly it doesn't belong. Show me the proof that Clint Eastwood reached No.1.
You said yourself that this was a double A side, this means there were two hits. Lee Marvin had one, Clint Eastwood had the other. If Marvin had both, he would have had two hits and could not be a OHW.
Tubeway Army was a band (as stated by Wikipedia - unless you're going to argue with every editor in that article) - Tubeway Army had one hit - a No.1, they are a genuine one hit wonder. Do not give the argument that the band just happened to contain Gary Numan - this makes no difference - he is not the whole band. And unless you are aware of every member of every group listed (going back to the 1950s) you can't just pick out individual members (and even then it would make no difference) Gary Numan and Tubeway Army are two different charting acts
Good point, as I meantioned before Tubeway Army is technically a collaboration, but in this case in reverse. As mentioned below Cliff Richard and The Young Ones contains other (multiple) hitmakers, so do Tubeway Army because one of their members went on to have other hits, therefore they should really be in the other list. If this were the case for any other OHW group like the Archies, Overlanders, Floaters, etc. there would most likely be some note of this in the Guiness Hit Singles book and the groups concered would also be put into the other list.
If Tubeway Army and Gary Numan had one number one hit each and nothing else then they would both have to be in the other list for this reason.
The Young Ones are a one hit wonder - they never had another hit.
The Young Ones themselves are nothing in the singles chart. Cliff Richard and The Young Ones is a different story. Cliff Richard had other hits, Neil from the Young Ones had another hit and so did a couple of the others with the group Bad News. Therefore it would be wrong to list Cliff Richard and The Young Ones as a genuine OHW, however no other records were released under the guise of Cliff Richard and The Young Ones, however as a collaboration, they should be in the other list, see below.
As per the nomination process - the titling of your section is wrong - "alternate guises" is not accurate.
I was only using what the Guiness Hit Singles book one used. If people don't like it, it an be changed. How about One off Collaborations? As this would be a subheading in the main OHW article, people should understand that better and not laim it to be misleading. Also inlude a note before the list saying that the one off collaborations made it to number one only once and so satisfy the criteria as a OHW although the artists conerned on their own do not. Or words to that effect.
Your section is still missing many many examples - the argument for 'and' or 'featuring' is invalid unless you check (and give references) as to how these artists pairings were actually credited.
Well only collaboration artists that have been equally credited are listed, this includes and as well as vs, but not featuring. This wasn't my rule anyway. The main artile already said that artists featuring were not counted so such OHW collaborations have not been included. This is a shame as Tupac featuring Elton John would have been an interesting one, but this would only be a hit for Tupac and as he has already had other hits, the Ghetto Gospal song could not be included.
We could include another separate list for featuring artist collaboations of this nature, but this would have so many entries, it would seem meaningless, that is if it was ever completed!
The list should be a list - as it's of lesser importance to the genuinely authentic one hit wonders.
Good point, we could have it as an indented list, as it is now.
I hope you understand my points here, even though it is hard to explain. These points do not mean that I am right and everyone else is wrong, but I hope I have made myself a little clearer. Please tell me what you think. I may well be wrong. --Cexycy (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - January 2009
Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.
Welcome to a special two month recap edition of the Eurovision Newsletter. From here on out, each monthly edition will be released at the end of the month, and will highlight the month's events.
The backlog of assessments in the project is still ongoing, with a large number of articles not being rated. If you see articles without the {{EurovisionNotice}} template on the article's talk page, please add it, or read Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment if you would like to help assess the articles as well.
Remember to source all information you add to pages or else it may be removed and always use an edit summary so other users know why you are adding or removing information.
Welcome to the sixth edition of the WikiProject Eurvision newsletter!
It's been a busy few months for me at school so I am going to need a lot more participation from the WikiProject in organizing this newsletter each month. It's not an easy task. The best way to help would be to submit anything you feel should be on the next newsletter here so that when I want to make it, I have all of the information ready to go. Also, by doing it this way, there is more information that you want to know as opposed to what I felt was important.
National final season is now in full swing and participants and songs are being chosen every week. For the most part, we are doing a great job in keeping all of the pages up to date, but I urge veteran editors to help out the new people as they tend to not know how everything should be done. As always, I am here to help so if anyone needs an opinion or has a question feel free to leave me a message on my talk; I am on Wikipedia everyday and can respond swiftly.
Orphaned non-free image (Image:BOM - Lightning Flash - Barry Upton.jpg)
⚠
Thanks for uploading Image:BOM - Lightning Flash - Barry Upton.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JaGatalk01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop uploading new version for Doctor Who images. While some do require cleanup, your images only make matters worse. Your versions look overexposed. Also, TV screenshots should not be cropped as it creates a derivative of a non-free work. — Edokter • Talk • 00:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to seem thankless, but your images do bounce the current ones from one extreme to another. But don't let it discourage you; experiment and let other see the results before uploading. — Edokter • Talk • 00:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the effort is appreciated - but unfortunately the end result has not improved the image quality. The changes have had to be reverted, because they demonstrate consistent issues with contrast, chroma, and exposure, as well as an overall loss of resolution. Just out of curiosity, what software and methodology are you using to process the images? As well, how is your monitor set up? Based on the changes, I'm inclined to think that it may need to be realigned. If you can provide some details, I might be able to suggest ways to achieve your desired results without the issues in the current batch.
Again, your interest in improving the images is great - but in future you might wish to put up one or two sample revised version on the Doctor Who talk page first, to allow others to offer some input.--Ckatzchatspy01:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed this image and saw it was missing information. Do you own the copyright to this image? Since it seems like a scanned image, if you are not the copyrigh holder the image can't be released under a CC license. The fact that you scanned it does not mean you own the copyright. This image could pass the non-free content criteria though. Garion96(talk)23:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edited the original image as per permission to modify. Changed the rationale now. Thought it was more appropriate/respectful. If not okay, just revert. I'm not that bothered, I just happened across it. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. This was an image on his grave? Then indeed you can't release it under a free content license. Since it would be considered a derivative work. I changed the image accordingly. Regarding adminship, the ad on my user page is exaggerated, although sometimes it seems that it is only slightly exaggerated. :) Garion96(talk)10:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The backlog of assessments in the project is still ongoing, with a large number of articles not being rated. If you see articles without the {{EurovisionNotice}} template on the article's talk page, please add it, or read Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment if you would like to help assess the articles as well. With the help of Camaron, Sims2aholic8, and Grk1011 in the past month, the assessment level has passed 50%!
Remember to source all information you add to pages properly or else it may be removed, and always use an edit summary so other users know why you are adding or removing information.
If you are going to make a page for a song in the contest, please make it more than a stub so it does not get deleted.
Eurovision News
Over twenty countries chose their songs or entrants in February for the upcoming 2009 contest. Check out the table of entries to see what's new.
Do you have news for the next issue? Submit it here!
Welcome to the seventh edition of the WikiProject Eurovision newsletter! It has been a busy month full of national finals and homework for school, so I apologize for publishing the newsletter so late.
The deadline for choosing the entries is right around the corner and following its passing, we will have a great opportunity to improve the quality of the articles in our project. There are many song stubs that have been created for the entries this year and I would like to see them expanded into coherent articles. Also, I think we need to take a look back at the "Country in ESC 2009" articles because I have noticed that most of them are out of date and need to be updated.
We need to focus more on quality these days instead of just adding new info wherever it fits. Our goals is not to jam as much info onto a page as we can, but to create an encyclopedia that people can read and learn from. Think about that next time you add something. Maybe take a minute to read the article over and fix any evident spelling, grammar, or flow problems. Everyone needs to do their share to make this a successful project.
The backlog of assessments in the project is still ongoing, with a large number of articles not being rated. If you see articles without the {{EurovisionNotice}} template on the article's talk page, please add it, or read Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment if you would like to help assess the articles as well.
Remember to source all information you add to pages properly or else it may be removed, and always use an edit summary so other users know why you are adding or removing information.
If you are going to make a page for a song in the contest, please make it more than a stub so it does not get deleted.
Eurovision News
All of the 2009 entries have been chosen. Check out the table of entries to see which song will represent each country.
Georgia withdrew from this year's contest once again, after concern that the lyrics of "We Don't Wanna Put In" violated Contest rules.
Music videos have been released on the official Eurovision YouTube channel. The United Kingdom and other countries that missed the deadline still released music videos for their songs.
Countries have begun to finalize their songs, with Albania's "Më merr në ëndërr" being translated into English, and other songs being tweaked.
Do you have news for the next issue? Submit it here!
Welcome to the eighth edition of the WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter! It's been one incredible month with all 42 entrants finalising their songs.
In one weekend we found out the winner of Melodifestivalen 2009, the song the Czech Repbulic had selected and also that the Georgian entry, "We Don't Wanna Put In", had been disqualified!
The running order draw took place on March 16th and Montenegro will open the 2009 contest, just like they did last year, having been drawn 1st in Semi Final 1. Spain got to pick their position for the 2009 final, and they will perform 25th. The UK got a much better draw than last year and will perform 23rd. Other notable draws see that Bosnia and Herzegovina will close the first semi final, Croatia will open semi final two and the Netherlands will close it.
In terms of articles: some "Country in the ESC 2009" pages are still short compared to more detailed articles like the Sweden and Lithuania pages. The "At Eurovision" and "Promo" sections in these articles need to be updated as many have released promo videos, updated their songs and changed elements of their stage productions. The Greece and UK articles are the best representatives of these features.
Arguments have erupted over the language of the Bosnian entry. No official source has been found yet and the 4LYRICS source is questionable due to an on-going argument in the comments section on the "Bistra voda" lyrics page. The overall concensus on the language used in the song is Bosnian so please, no more changes to the language!
Thanks for uploading File:Krynoid2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
IMPORTANT: There is currently a proposal to change the design of some of our projects navigational templates. Please weigh in here. This project wide change needs as many opinions as possible to determine consensus.
Always use an edit summary even when the edit is minor so that other users know why you are adding or removing information; we can't read minds.
With Afkatk's recent tagging spree, there are now over 2,500 articles associated with the project. If you see Eurovision related articles without the {{EurovisionNotice}} template on the article's talk page, please add it. You can also read Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment if you would like to help assess articles as well.
Eurovision News
Do you have news for the next issue? Submit it here!
Welcome to the ninth edition of the WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter!
We're less than a month away from the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 and now is the time to make sure that all articles are the best that they can be. This is our busiest time and thousands of people will come to Wikipedia and will see our work. We need to show them that Wikipedia is a place to come for facts and a site that they can rely on.
I can't emphasize enough how important it is for members to take part in discussions on talk pages. We have 65 members and usually less than five people step up and comment. Editing Wikipedia means is being part of a community. Take pride in what you do here and make your positions known!
I hope to see you all editing like a storm next month, and don't forget to submit news for the next newsletter here.
Thanks for uploading File:Krynoid2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
On the RS 500 Greatest Songs Talk page, you wrote:
Irish songs
It says that there are 12 songs by Irish artists - 6 of them by U2, but having had a look I can only find Sinead O' Connor's "Nothing Compares 2 U" and right at the end, Thin Lizzy's "Boys are Back in Town". Have I missed the other 4 and what are they?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
"Article Alerts" are available on our Eurovision project page and show which project related articles are tagged for things such as deletion, GA review, peer review, etc. Take a look and do what you can to help out.
Thanks to Afkatk's recent tagging and assessing spree, there are now over 2,700 articles associated with the project and all are assessed. If you happen to see a Eurovision related article without the {{EurovisionNotice}} template on the article's talk page, please add it. You can also read Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment if you would like to help reassess articles in our project if you see that they have outgrown their current assessment.
F. Y. R. Macedonia is threatening to withdraw from the 2010 Contest with the reasoning that it has come tenth twice in successive years in the semi final stage, but has failed to proceed to the final in both instances.
More than a dozen countries have already confirmed their participation for the 2010 Contest. The countries confirmed so far can be seen here.
Welcome to the tenth edition of the WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter!
This month was a very busy month in terms of editing and adding to Eurovision 2009 articles. The 2009 contest is now over but there is still much work to be done.
Some Country in ESC 2009 pages are yet to have their "At Eurovision" sections updated. Some countries need more information than others, e.g. Slovenia's article needs to mention that the song was actually sung in Slovenian and English, and not just English like in the official mp3, etc.
Work has begun on the 2010 contest article already. Please do not add sections to the article about confirmed participants or withdrawn participants unless you have a source!
I would like to comment about the inclusion of "Baddiel, Skinner and the Lightning Seeds" as a OHW. The original song released in 1996, was the official anthem of the England football team for that year's European Championships, held in England. The music was written by The Lightning Seeds, with comedians David Baddiel and Frank Skinner providing the lyrics; and reached #1 making it a OHW at the time. However, it was subsequently re-recorded with different lyrics (under the title "Three Lions '98") as an unofficial anthem for England's World Cup campaign in 1998 and landed the number one spot in the singles chart for a second time. Thus now making it a 2-hit-wonder for the same group (Baddiel, Skinner and the Lightning Seeds). Then in 2002 they re-released it again; and it reached #16; and in 2006 released for the 4th time and peaked at #9 in the UK charts. So this song is no longer a OHW. My brother-in-law who is a DJ also agrees with this; and states that the facts themselves show that it is no longer a OHW and has never seen since its second release in 1998. (Pr3st0n (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
There are now over 2,800 articles associated with the project (100 more than last month) and all are assessed. If you happen to see a Eurovision related article without the {{EurovisionNotice}} template on the article's talk page, please add it. You can also read Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment if you would like to help reassess articles in our project if you see that they have outgrown their current assessment.
Following recent disputes relating to sourcing in Eurovision articles, an RfC has been opened on the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. The dispute particularly focuses on use of ESCToday and Oikotimes as sources in articles. The RfC is suffering from lack of participation; all project members are encouraged to state their opinion.
Project members are reminded that text and images in articles must follow Wikipedia's copyright policies. Text must not be copied out or copied and pasted into articles from websites whose material is not under a Wikipedia compatible free license. Fully copyrighted text includes that from the EBU (Eurovision.tv), ESCToday, and Okiotimes. Images must also not be uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons for use in Eurovision articles unless they are under a free license, this does not include most images on the internet or TV screen shots even if they were taken by the uploader. Copyrighted images may be uploaded onto the English Wikipedia (not Commons) for use in Eurovision articles if a valid claim of fair use can be made, note that the criteria are strict.
Welcome to the eleventh edition of the WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter!
Things are beginning to quiet down now that the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest is behind us, which is the project's busiest time of year. A few of us however still had to slow down during this period, including myself, as May and June also happens to be exam season in multiple parts of the world. There is much still to be done in any case with preparations for the 2010 Song Contest now well under way, and the host city, Oslo, now confirmed.
There are several items that this project needs to debate including choices of sourcing and what contests come under the banner of this project. The first of these items is already being addressed at a new RfC (see left). Further ideas that could be developed include creation of some article guidelines for Eurovision articles. This could start as an advisory essay and then later, if consensus permits, become an official Wikipedia guideline. Examples of these already in existence include Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines.
Merge/Separation of different versions of the same song
As somebody who appears to be interested in song articles you might be interested to know there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separation of different versions of the same song. You are invited to comment.--Richhoncho (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
